1 Introduction This Is Not, in Any Consistent Sense, a Study of Herbert Eimert’S Life, Times, Or Music
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-79971-3 — Herbert Eimert and the Darmstadt School Max Erwin Excerpt More Information Herbert Eimert and the Darmstadt School 1 1 Introduction This is not, in any consistent sense, a study of Herbert Eimert’s life, times, or music. Nor is it concerned with presenting a particularly detailed reading of his thought and writings about music. In fact, it argues that these writings enunciate a largely unaltered understanding of New Music over the course of almost half a century. Rather, it is expressly concerned with the relatively brief period of time at the beginning of the 1950s when Eimert’s understanding of New Music became the institutional discourse of New Music, which, more importantly and more to the point, in turn became the discourse which historians continue to deploy to explicate the development of the musical avant-garde in Europe after World War II – an avant-garde invariantly clustered in discursive formations of ‘post-Webern music’, ‘punctual music’, and the ‘Darmstadt School’. This study does not propose to account for how or why Eimert devised these concepts, but it does demonstrate definitively that they came from him. I do not give this demonstration as a sort of conspiratorial revelation; the prominence of cultural gatekeepers in the professional development of young composers is surely not a new and unexpected subject for scholarship. What is new and unexpected is (1) that Eimert’s blueprint for a ‘punctual’ avant-garde predates the ‘punctual’ works by Stockhausen by nearly thirty years; (2) that Eimert used the practices of now-obscure composers to explicate the practices of now-prominent ones, rendering explanations of what ‘Darmstadt composers’ were doing fundamentally confused and skewed; and (3) that this discourse is still deployed to explain New Music in the 1950s. The point here is that the discourse precedes the practice. As such, the explication for these musical practices under the Darmstadt banner – practices which, as a very large quantity of very thorough research has demonstrated, are far from uniform and in fact are quite nearly incommensurable under a single label – only deals with the music itself in a cursory, epiphenomenal manner.1 Consequently, the practice of music historiography has hitherto not dealt with this music at all. It has only dealt with the discourse Eimert made for it. 1 I am referring specifically to Martin Iddon, New Music at Darmstadt: Nono, Stockhausen, Cage, and Boulez (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013); M. J. Grant, Serial Music, Serial Aesthetics: Compositional Theory in Post-War Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001); Mark Delaere, ‘Olivier Messiaen’s Analysis Seminar and the Development of Post-War Serial Music’, trans. Richard Evans, Music Analysis, 21.1 (2002), 35–51; Inge Kovács, Wege zum musikalischen Strukturalismus: René Leibowitz, Pierre Boulez, John Cage und die Webern- Rezeption in Paris um 1950 (Schliengen: Argus, 2004); Christopher Fox, ‘Darmstadt and the Institutionalisation of Modernism’, Contemporary Music Review, 26.1 (2007), 115–23; Björn Heile, ‘Darmstadt as Other: British and American Responses to Musical Modernism’, Twentieth-Century Music, 1.2 (2004), 161–78; Paul Attinello, ‘Postmodern or Modern: A Different Approach to Darmstadt’, Contemporary Music Review, 26.1 (2007), 25–37, in addition to others cited passim. © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-79971-3 — Herbert Eimert and the Darmstadt School Max Erwin Excerpt More Information 2 Elements in Music Since 1945 A certain amount of historical scene-setting is necessary to appreciate Eimert’s interventions, and I hope to accomplish it quickly and relatively elegantly with a brief summary of the institution of Darmstadt and its key players from its inception in 1946 until 1951, when Eimert comes to the fore as a distinct cultural force. Karel Goeyvaerts, a Belgian composer who had recently completed his studies in Paris with Olivier Messiaen and Darius Milhaud, arrived at the 1951 courses after a series of early career successes, including a performance at the International Society for Contemporary Music (ISCM) World Music Days of 1950. Goeyvaerts, who had previously incorpor- ated elements of his Roman Catholic faith into his compositions (his Tre lieder per sonare a venti-sei, for example, calls for an altar bell, typically rung when the celebrant gives the Eucharistic Prayer), now developed a sophisticated metaphysical method of composition in conjunction with fellow student Jean Barraqué.2 Both devout Catholics, Barraqué and Goeyvaerts expanded on several compositional techniques of their teacher Messiaen, who himself described his compositional practice as a method of expressing ‘the theology and the truths of our Catholic faith’.3 The result was a series of structural devices – crosses, mirror-symmetries, ciphers based on holy numbers – that largely eliminated the sorts of subjective decision-making that might normally be considered to be part of compositional craft. Indeed, Goeyvaerts termed this new ideal ‘selfless music’, the end result being a purified sound world that approximated a Neo-Platonic higher divine order removed from human experi- ence. Karlheinz Stockhausen, a composition student four years younger than Goeyvaerts and himself a devout Roman Catholic, encountered Goeyvaerts at the 1951 Darmstädter Ferienkurse and was deeply impressed with the older composer’s new method of composition, adopting it himself in Kreuzspiel, which he began immediately after the 1951 courses and completed in early 1952, with advice from Goeyvaerts. During the same period, Herbert Eimert was beginning to enlarge his sphere of influence as a cultural gatekeeper at the NWDR (Nordwestdeutscher Rundfunk; later Westdeutscherrundfunk, WDR), and had made the acquaintance of both Goeyvaerts and Stockhausen, taking the latter tightly under his wing.4 The consequences of this relationship are the 2 See Max Erwin, ‘Who Is Buried in Webern’s Tomb? Orientations in the Reception of Serial Music from Messiaen to Stockhausen’, Perspectives of New Music, in press. 3 Olivier Messiaen, The Technique of My Musical Language, trans. John Satterfield (Paris: Alphonse Leduc, 1956), I.13. 4 Goeyvaerts had met Eimert at the 1950 ISCM New Music Days; Eimert was particularly impressed that Goeyvaerts had a score of Webern’s Second Cantata, which had not been published yet, and the two followed this score during the performance of the piece. See Karel Goeyvaerts, ‘Paris – Darmstadt: 1947–1956: Excerpt from the Autobiographical Portrait’, trans. Mark Delaere, Revue belge de Musicologie/Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Muziekwetenschap,48 (1994), 39. Helmut Kirchmeyer suggests that Eimert’s relationship to the young Stockhausen was © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-79971-3 — Herbert Eimert and the Darmstadt School Max Erwin Excerpt More Information Herbert Eimert and the Darmstadt School 3 focus of this study, and its central purpose is to demonstrate how Eimert deployed the compositional techniques used by Goeyvaerts and Stockhausen as a universal technical programme for New Music. Largely through Eimert’s influence, the early practice of Goeyvaerts and Stockhausen became the house style of the Darmstadt School, even though virtually no other composers – and certainly not their prominent peers Luigi Nono, Bruno Maderna, and Pierre Boulez – adopted these techniques or their attendant metaphysical ideology. On to Darmstadt. At the outset of the 1946 courses, director Wolfgang Steinecke described their objective in negative terms, as a necessary corrective to ‘a criminal cultural politics that robbed German musical life of its leading personalities and its connection with the world’.5 The primary rhetorical object- ive of the courses at their inception, then, was one of internationalisation and ‘catching up’ to the outside world (Nachholbedarf). It was uncertain, as the press response to the 1947 courses makes clear, whether a coherent avant-garde, let alone a modernist New Music, was to play any part in their proceedings. In retrospect, then, the courses are hardly recognisable as the historical Darmstadt at this stage; Iddon’s thorough prehistory describes them as ‘ramshackle affairs in most respects’, to the extent that they primarily functioned ‘as experiments in finding out what the courses could be and how they might function’.6 Such a confusion of purpose in retrospect problematises the usual historiographical demarcations and conceptual vocabulary deployed to explicate the post-war avant-garde, especially the ‘zero hour’ myth. Contrary to Steinecke’s inaugural address, the first courses extensively programmed the work of composers implicated in the Nazi regime, and numerous works by such composers were heavily represented in the two following iterations.7 While many of the more compromised of these composers were dropped from the programmes of later close enough to be that of a foster father; see below and Kirchmeyer, Kleine Monographie über Herbert Eimert (Leipzig: Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1998), 9. 5 ‘[E]ine verbrecherische Kulturpolitik das deutsche Musikleben seiner führenden Persönlichkeiten und seines Zusammenhanges mit der Welt beraubt.’ Wolfgang Steinecke, reproduced in Gianmario Borio and Hermann Danuser, eds., Im Zenit der Moderne: Die Internationalen Ferienkurse für Neue Musik Darmstadt 1946–1966 (Freiburg: Rombach,